RE: christian terrorism?

RE: christian terrorism? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

RCdc -> RE: christian terrorism? (6/5/2009 1:30:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig Having just read up on the "No true scotsman fallacy", I have to agree with DomKen. the arguement about true christians is exactly that. I agree also. the.dark.

DomKen -> RE: christian terrorism? (6/5/2009 1:33:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Truthiness quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen I didn't resort to ad hominen. I was referring more to your accusation of trolling instead of addressing an attempt at a serious and rational argument...thus attacking me and not the argument. =) quote: You still haven't addressed the point though, why isn't your and others dismissal of various bad actors as 'not christians' not simply the no true scotsman fallacy? I have addressed it though, by describing the book that defines what a Christian is; and ex No. you haven't because that book also directs the followers of christ to kill any man who 'lays' with another man and refers to such men as abominations which is where Phelps draws his support. Roeder even has a better argument based on matthew 25:40 "And the King will make answer and say to them, Truly I say to you, Because you did it to the least of these my brothers, you did it to me."

Arpig -> RE: christian terrorism? (6/5/2009 1:34:31 PM)
quote: I have addressed it though, by describing the book that defines what a Christian is; Except that exact same book is what these "false" christians use to support their views, thus it can't be used to define what is and what isn't christian, since both groups interpret it their own way. ETA: Damn DK, you beat me to it!!![:@] sulks in the corner, muttering about those durn fast fingers of DK's

Truthiness -> RE: christian terrorism? (6/5/2009 1:36:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen No. you haven't because that book also directs the followers of christ to kill any man who 'lays' with another man and refers to such men as abominations which is where Phelps draws his support. No, it doesn't direct the followers of Christ to do that. You're referring to something told to people long before Christ lived that doesn't apply anymore. That said, I fixed the post...my bluetooth keyboard has been lagging and giving trouble.

Truthiness -> RE: christian terrorism? (6/5/2009 1:38:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig quote: I have addressed it though, by describing the book that defines what a Christian is; Except that exact same book is what these "false" christians use to support their views, thus it can't be used to define what is and what isn't christian, since both groups interpret it their own way. Just because some people interpret it wrong doesn't mean the definition isn't given. =) Christian means "Follower of Christ" at it's core. That's not from the Bible...that's the greek translation. I'm simply asserting that when someone shoots another in cold blood, he wasn't following Christ. That is not a "True Scotsman" fallacy.

Truthiness -> RE: christian terrorism? (6/5/2009 1:40:34 PM)
If I went and shot everyone at AIG because I mistakenly thought Obama wanted them punished like that...would you actually think I was "following Obama" in that action? I'm sure Obama wouldn't agree. And I'm sure Jesus wouldn't agree that the murder of Tiller was something he asked for.

RCdc -> RE: christian terrorism? (6/5/2009 1:47:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Truthiness quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen No. you haven't because that book also directs the followers of christ to kill any man who 'lays' with another man and refers to such men as abominations which is where Phelps draws his support. No, it doesn't direct the followers of Christ to do that. You're referring to something told to people long before Christ lived that doesn't apply anymore. Aren't you the same Truthiness whom I was having a major discussion with on another thread last week about the relevance of homosexuality being wrong in christian terms because of what was written in the bible - the same person I challenged? How comes in a week, you altered your stance and it's now 'not applicable'? the.dark.

Truthiness -> RE: christian terrorism? (6/5/2009 1:49:19 PM)
The KILLING of homosexuals is what I referred to here. I haven't changed my stance at all. The Bible does not tell the followers of Christ to kill homosexuals as DomKen asserted. Please get my stances correct at least. sigh

NihilusZero -> RE: christian terrorism? (6/5/2009 1:52:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Truthiness No, it doesn't direct the followers of Christ to do that. You're referring to something told to people long before Christ lived that doesn't apply anymore. See...this confuses me. Jesus is supposed to be the human avatar of the judeo-christian deity, despite the fact that Jesus does not support himself as the embodiment of god (meaning all modern christians are in violation of the first and second commandments). Even for the sake of argument, though, apparently, during the installation of his brain into a human body, this god had an odd change of mind...deciding that, while in human form, the ideas and edicts he declared beforehand (the OT) were outdated (there's omniscience for you), and abandoning the notion of killing sinners (as if sending them to eternal torment wasn't bad enough) for trying to convert them (via an appeal to adverse consequences). So...either jesus = god, in which case the only reason his words don't "apply anymore" is because he can change his mind willy nilly, which brings us back to the point that any interpretation of his thoughts (even those supporting kiling) can be argued to be accurate.. ...or jesus ≠ god, in which case christians are following the wrong guy (something the other guy isn't fond of).

RCdc -> RE: christian terrorism? (6/5/2009 1:53:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Truthiness If I went and shot everyone at AIG because I mistakenly thought Obama wanted them punished like that...would you actually think I was "following Obama" in that action? I'm sure Obama wouldn't agree. And I'm sure Jesus wouldn't agree that the murder of Tiller was something he asked for. Well Bush went to Iraq and brought god into it. Like I said before, that can be considered as christian terrorism. the.dark.

NihilusZero -> RE: christian terrorism? (6/5/2009 1:55:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Truthiness The KILLING of homosexuals is what I referred to here. I haven't changed my stance at all. The Bible does not tell the followers of Christ to kill homosexuals as DomKen asserted. Please get my stances correct at least. sigh Fair point. There is a difference between killing them and treating them as if they were the damned.

Truthiness -> RE: christian terrorism? (6/5/2009 1:56:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero So...either jesus = god, in which case the only reason his words don't "apply anymore" is because he can change his mind willy nilly Or there was nothing "willy nilly" about it, and it was a process that took centuries to happen, with Abraham having a pivotal role in getting it started.

RCdc -> RE: christian terrorism? (6/5/2009 1:57:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Truthiness The KILLING of homosexuals is what I referred to here. I haven't changed my stance at all. The Bible does not tell the followers of Christ to kill homosexuals as DomKen asserted. Please get my stances correct at least. sigh So theres a difference between damning a homosexual and killing them? Right. Gotcha. the.dark.

Truthiness -> RE: christian terrorism? (6/5/2009 1:58:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero quote: ORIGINAL: Truthiness The KILLING of homosexuals is what I referred to here. I haven't changed my stance at all. The Bible does not tell the followers of Christ to kill homosexuals as DomKen asserted. Please get my stances correct at least. sigh Fair point. There is a difference between killing them and treating them as if they were the damned. Neither of which I do. If you'd read the other thread, you'd see my belief that God forgives sin, which is a good thing because if simply being homosexual meant being damned, then we'd all be damned all having equally sinned.

RCdc -> RE: christian terrorism? (6/5/2009 1:58:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero quote: ORIGINAL: Truthiness The KILLING of homosexuals is what I referred to here. I haven't changed my stance at all. The Bible does not tell the followers of Christ to kill homosexuals as DomKen asserted. Please get my stances correct at least. sigh Fair point. There is a difference between killing them and treating them as if they were the damned. Opps. Yikes. .Mybad. You post too fast. the.dark.

Truthiness -> RE: christian terrorism? (6/5/2009 1:59:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark quote: ORIGINAL: Truthiness The KILLING of homosexuals is what I referred to here. I haven't changed my stance at all. The Bible does not tell the followers of Christ to kill homosexuals as DomKen asserted. Please get my stances correct at least. sigh So theres a difference between damning a homosexual and killing them? Right. Gotcha. the.dark. Great, now just quote me saying that I damn homosexuals, or stop with the strawmen. They're getting old.

jenninstockings -> RE: christian terrorism? (6/5/2009 2:00:35 PM)
makes one want to distance themselves from both the Muslims and the Christians...."And it harm none....do what ye will" Blessed Be

RCdc -> RE: christian terrorism? (6/5/2009 2:01:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Truthiness Great, now just quote me saying that I damn homosexuals, or stop with the strawmen. They're getting old. No strawmen here. Just true scots. Way to go to avoid my bush comment though. the.dark.

DomKen -> RE: christian terrorism? (6/5/2009 2:02:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Truthiness The KILLING of homosexuals is what I referred to here. I haven't changed my stance at all. The Bible does not tell the followers of Christ to kill homosexuals as DomKen asserted. Please get my stances correct at least. sigh replying to all of this stuff at once. If you're claiming nothing in the Old Testament applies to christians then why are the books part of the christian bible? I will note that all of the holy books of the jews were not included so it is clear the parts that are included were chosen for some purpose. Including Leviticus is pretty clearly because it was still supposed to be relevant to christians. BTW is there even a condemnation of homsexuality in the 4 gospels? I can't find one.

NihilusZero -> RE: christian terrorism? (6/5/2009 2:02:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Truthiness quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero So...either jesus = god, in which case the only reason his words don't "apply anymore" is because he can change his mind willy nilly Or there was nothing "willy nilly" about it, and it was a process that took centuries to happen, with Abraham having a pivotal role in getting it started. It took centuries for god to realize he's fallible? That he killed inumerable numbers of people on an "oopsie!"? So...you're essentially saying that the son of a fallible being is what we're trading up to now, which is why we get to ignore the OT in favor of only those things Jesus wrote...er...I mean those things written by humans about what Jesus did (a few decades or centuries later)...?

Page: << < prev 9 10 [11] 12 13 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125